Technology

37746 readers

326 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

108

Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access after launch of service that brought iMessage to Android (techcrunch.com)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

As they should.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why? As the article states this actually lessens security for everyone (including iPhone users).

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

Imagine that! The founder of the company that was denied access to Apple for creating an app that essentially copped an app that is part of their proprietary OS, says it would have increased their security!

Well gosh!!!! let them in then!

[–] [email protected] 33 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't really understand your argument.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

Okay.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This is nothing to do with the OS.

He has a point though, you haven't refuted that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

iMessages is part of iOS. How is this not common knowledge?

[–] [email protected] 33 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Because you're confusing the difference between an OS, an application and a protocol.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I didn’t say it WAS the OS, I said it is part of it. Stop arguing semantics. We’re done here.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

creating an app that essentially copped their proprietary OS

The OS hasn't been 'copped'. They emulated the protocol, and your lack of understanding and confusing the two has led us to having this conversation.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Stop arguing semantics. We're done here.

Compare to Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master——that's all.

Yeah, if you want to make up your own definitions to the words you use, and then order those around you to stop arguing semantics, then you're basically not having a conversation at all.

Your comment was confusing because you don't seem to understand what is or isn't part of an operating system, and the mere mention of the operating system was pretty far removed from any relevance to your own point.

It's a proprietary service, and if you want to argue that companies can run proprietary services in a closed manner, denying access to third party clients, cool, that can be your position, but it would be an incoherent position to claim that only OS developers should have that right.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

and if you want to argue that companies can run proprietary services in a closed manner, denying access to third party clients, cool, that can be your position

Can it really? Cool! Thanks! That’s my position then.